Article contents
Philosophical Feminist Bioethics
Past, Present, and Future
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2015
Abstract:
The end of the last century was a particularly vibrant period for feminist bioethics. Almost two decades on, we reflect on the legacy of the feminist critique of bioethics and investigate the extent to which it has been successful and what requires more attention yet. We do this by examining the past, present, and future: we draw out three feminist concerns that emerged in this period—abstraction, individualism, and power—and consider three feminist responses—relationality, particularity, and justice—and we finish with some thoughts about the future.
- Type
- Special Section: Philosophical Bioethics—Its State and Future
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015
References
Notes
1. For a useful list of feminist bioethics work, see Donchin A. Feminist bioethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2012 Sept (cited 2014 July 5); available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/feminist-bioethics/ (last accessed 13 Aug 2014).
2. Wolf, SM, ed. Feminism and Bioethics: Beyond Reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
3. Tong, R. Feminist Approaches to Bioethics: Theoretical Reflections and Practical Applications. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1997.Google Scholar
4. See note 1, Donchin 2012.
5. Wolf SM. Introduction: Gender and feminism in bioethics. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):3–44; and note 3, Tong 1997, at 75–98.
6. Though defining “a” feminist approach is problematic given the notorious complexities of the movement, we take “feminist” to mean a minimal commitment to combating oppression and respecting agency. Likewise, though difficult to define, we take “feminist bioethics” to include the insights of various feminisms, such as being politically eclectic, ontologically autokoenomous, epistemologically positional, and ethically relational (see note 3, Tong 1997, at 93), and with an aim of actively opposing harm to women (see note 5, Wolf 1996, at 21).
7. Holmes, HB. Closing the gaps. In: Donchin, A, Purdy, LM, eds. Embodying Bioethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 1999:45–64.Google Scholar
8. Shildrick, M. Leaky Bodies and Boundaries. New York: Routledge; 1997.Google Scholar
9. Arras, JD. Principles and particularity. Indiana Law Journal 1994;69(4):983–1014.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Sherwin S. Feminism and bioethics. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):47–66, at 52, 57.
11. Mahowald M. On treatment of myopia. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):95–115, at 99, 101.
12. Roberts D. Reconstructing the patient. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):116–43, at 119.
13. Dresser R. What bioethics can learn from the women’s health movement. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):144–59, at 154.
14. Farrell Smith J. Communicative ethics in medicine. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):184–215, at 185, 202.
15. Lindemann Nelson H, Lindemann Nelson J. Justice in the allocation of health care resources. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):351–370, at 353.
16. For more, see note 3, Tong 1997, at 53.
17. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 15.
18. For more on deductivism, see Gert, B. The Moral Rules. New York: Harper and Row; 1973.Google Scholar
19. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 59.
20. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 15.
21. For more on inductivism, see Jonsen, AR, Toumlin, S. The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1988.Google Scholar
22. Though Beauchamp and Childress claim that the principles were not intended to be purely deductivist, Wolf argues that the question is exactly how deductivist and inductivist one is. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 16.
23. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 15.
24. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 15.
25. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 95.
26. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 244.
27. Fox, RC, Swazey, JP. Medical morality is not bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1984;27(3):336–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Sakamoto, H. Towards a new “global bioethics.” Bioethics 1999;13(3/4):191–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Sherwin, S, ed. The Politics of Women’s Health. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
30. See note 10, Sherwin 1996, at 52.
31. Purdy LM. A feminist view of health. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):163–83.
32. See note 14, Farrell Smith 1996, at 186, 191.
33. Asch A, Geller G. Feminism, bioethics, and genetics. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):318–50, at 327.
34. See note 15, Lindemann Nelson, Lindemann Nelson 1996, at 354.
35. For more, see Toulmin, S. Medical ethics in its American context. In: Callahan, D, Dunstan, GR, eds. Biomedical Ethics. New York Academy of Sciences; 1988Google Scholar; and Jonsen, AR. The birth of bioethics. Hastings Centre Report 1993;23 Suppl 6:S1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 16.
37. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 81, 84.
38. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 16.
39. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 16.
40. Tong R. Feminist approaches to bioethics. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):67–94, at 74.
41. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 94.
42. Code, L. What Can She Know? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1991, at 78.Google Scholar
43. See note 10, Sherwin 1996, at 60.
44. See note 11, Mahowald 1996, at 101.
45. See note 12, Roberts 1996, at 116.
46. See note 13, Dresser 1996, at 145.
47. See note 31, Purdy 1996, at 171.
48. See note 14, Farrell Smith 1996, at 189.
49. Merton V. Ethical obstacles to the participation of women in biomedical research. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):216–51, at 217, 234.
50. Faden R, Kass N, McGraw D. Women as vessels and vectors. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):252–81, at 253.
51. See note 15, Lindemann Nelson, Lindemann Nelson 1996, at 358, 365.
52. Wolf SM. Ethics committees and due process. Maryland Law Review 1991;50:798–858.
53. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 18.
54. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 19.
55. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 19.
56. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 90.
57. See Rich, AC. Of Woman Born. London: Virago; 1977.Google Scholar
58. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 92.
59. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 6.
60. For more, see, e.g., Gilligan, C. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1982Google Scholar; and Noddings, N. Caring. Berkeley, London: University of California Press; 1984.Google Scholar
61. For more, see Dodds, S. Choice and control in feminist bioethics. In: Mackenzie, C, Stoljar, N, eds. Relational Autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000:213–35.Google Scholar
62. For more, see Mackenzie, C, Stoljar, N, eds. Relational Autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
63. For more, see, e.g., note 10, Sherwin 1996; McLeod C, Sherwin S. Relational autonomy, self-trust, and health care for patients who are oppressed. In: Mackenzie, Stoljar 2000 (see note 62):259–79; note 11, Mahowald 1996; and note 61, Dodds 2000.
64. For more, see note 3, Tong 1997, at 94–5; and note 62, Mackenzie, Stoljar 2000, at 4.
65. Gotlib, A. Intergenerational justice and health care. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics [hereafter IJFAB] 2014;7(1):142–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66. Victor, E, Guidry-Grimes, L. The persistence of agency through social institutions and caring for future generations. IJFAB 2014;7(1):122–41.Google Scholar
67. Scheman, N. Empowering canaries. IJFAB 2014;7(1):169–91.Google Scholar
68. Wardlaw, MP. The right-to-die exception. IJFAB 2010;3(2):43–62.Google Scholar
69. Rogers, W, Mackenzie, C, Dodds, S. Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. IJFAB 2012;5(2):11–38.Google Scholar
70. Bluhm, R. Gender differences in depression. IJFAB 2011;4(1):69–88.Google Scholar
71. Landeweer, E, Abma, TA, Dauwerse, L, Widdershoven, GAM. Triad collaboration in psychiatry. IJFAB 2011;4(1):121–39.Google Scholar
72. See note 69, Rogers et al. 2012.
73. Shah, K, Batzer, F. Infertility in the developing world. IJFAB 2010;3(2):109–25.Google Scholar
74. Wild, V. How are pregnant women vulnerable research participants? IJFAB 2012;5(2):82–104.Google Scholar
75. Bergum, V. Relational ethics in nursing. In: Storch, JL, Rodney, P, Starzomski, R, eds. Toward a Moral Horizon. Toronto, ON: Pearson; 2004:485–503.Google Scholar
76. Ells, C, Hunt, MR, Chambers-Evans, J. Relational autonomy as an essential component of patient-centered care. IJFAB 2011;4(2):79–101.Google Scholar
77. For more, see note 60, Noddings 1984.
78. For more, see UK Department of Health. Transforming Care: A National Response to Winterbourne View Hospital. Department of Health Review: Final Report; 2012 Dec (cited 2014 July 4); available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213215/final-report.pdf (last accessed 13 Aug 2014 ).
79. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 96.
80. Luna, F, Wolf, AB. Challenges for assisted reproduction and secondary infertility in Latin America. IJFAB 2014;7(1):3–27.Google Scholar
81. Rodrigues, S. Awoman’s “right to know”? IJFAB 2014;7(1):51–73.Google Scholar
82. Van de Wiel, L. The time of the change. IJFAB 2014;7(1):74–98.Google Scholar
83. Harbin, A. Disorientation and the medicalization of struggle. IJFAB 2014;7(1):99–121.Google Scholar
84. See note 66, Victor, Guidry-Grimes 2012.
85. Cosgrove, L. The DSM, big pharma, and clinical practice guidelines. IJFAB 2011;4(1):11–25.Google Scholar
86. Dickenson, D. Body Shopping. Oxford: Oneworld; 2008.Google Scholar
87. Tong, R. Towards a feminist global bioethics: Addressing women’s health concerns worldwide. Health Care Analysis 2001;9:229–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
88. Coleman, CH, Bouësseau, MC, Reis, A. The contribution of ethics to public health. Bulletin of the WHO 2008;86(8): 578–79.Google ScholarPubMed
89. See note 88, Coleman et al. 2008.
90. Kass, NE. Public health ethics. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004;32:232–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
91. For more, see Widdows, H. Rejecting the choice paradigm. In: Phillips, A, Madhok, S, Wilson, K, eds. Gender, Agency and Coercion. London: Palgrave; 2013:157–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
92. Laurie, G. Genetic Privacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002, at 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93. For more, see note 91, Widdows 2013.
94. See note 91, Widdows 2013.
95. See note 91, Widdows 2013.
- 10
- Cited by